DrP Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 You could ask the same thing about Israel and their use of white phosphorus on Gaza civilians... The news last night suggested that the white phosphorous was used only to provide a smoke screen for troop advancement. They pop out a few flares that give off white smoke for ages to give cover to advancing troops. It suggested that injuries caused buy these happened in an attempt to stamp out the flares. So - these 'civilians' that were supposedly burnt up by white phospherous attacks were actually burnt when they were trying to sabotage the Isreali smoke screens by trying to stamp out the flares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 However, to answer your question (which I already did), I would approve of an immediate, temporary ceasefire followed by Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. That's all well and good, but what makes you think that Hamas would accept, much less honor, a ceasefire? A one-sided ceasefire is not a ceasefire, it is an invitation to get beaten on. My suggestion for a solution is for Hamas to change itself to a charity organization that helps the poor or sick. Unlike your suggestion, my suggestion would solve the problem. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI don't disagree that the 2 months of continuous bombardment were partly within the ceasefire period. I'm just concerned about the previous four months, where the ceasefire was, for all intents and purposes, working. Furthermore, you're trying to attribute attacks within the preceding 4 months to Hamas. What's your evidence? True. Those attacks could have been rouge Hamas people, or perhaps unaffiliated people who wanted to provoke Israel. However, it was Hamas and not Israel that declared an end to the ceasefire. Israel waited months after Hamas declared an end to the ceasefire before this invasion. They didn't use the first of those rocket attacks during the ceasefire to declare the ceasefire over and launch an attack. To me it seems that Israel showed remarkable restraint. As to the tunnel construction/attack, I don't know myself what the purpose of the tunnel was nor whether Hamas was in any way justified in building it. But if the tunnel was being used to smuggle rockets, it does seem again that Hamas first violated the ceasefire and Israel responded with a very limited surgical strike. Do you think that Israel should have allowed the tunnel? If so, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Geesh... bascule is being cornered in this thread. I thought it obvious that he simply wants less people to die, an approach most of us agree with. He hates neither Israel nor Hamas, what he seems to hate is unecessary killings. It seems talks went on in Cairo today, and that Hamas leadership is starting to budge. Seems they don't like being spanked so badly in public. While talks were occurring, Israel unleashed additional (and amazingly powerful) offenses as if to say, "You'd better take this seriously, or else there will be more of this coming." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Geesh... bascule is being cornered in this thread. I thought it obvious that he simply wants less people to die, an approach most of us agree with. He hates neither Israel nor Hamas, what he seems to hate is unecessary killings. It seems talks went on in Cairo today, and that Hamas leadership is starting to budge. Seems they don't like being spanked so badly in public. While talks were occurring, Israel unleashed additional (and amazingly powerful) offenses as if to say, "You'd better take this seriously, or else there will be more of this coming." Err, I didn't mean to corner anyone, as I mentioned in my rather long post above. I apologize if it seemed so. With due respect, though, I did get the feeling there's a bit of "quick-judgment" on his part towards Israel -- which, I guess, is understandable, due to it being the obvious stronger part. And yet, this is why this discussion was (and hopefully continues to be) interesting. Debating with people you agree with isn't very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 No worries. Your post above was excellent, and very heart felt, sincere, and appreciated. Did you hear about the Cairo talks? Agree/Disagree with my reasoning behind today's offensive while they occurred? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But bascule you've been posting one-sided conspiracy theories since you started in on this subject, and I have to say it's getting a little old. oh... nothing... See Sir Gerald Kaufman (British Jewish MP) in the House of Commons condemn Israel as behaving like Nazis here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21781.htm Edited January 17, 2009 by bombus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I think that the comparison falls apart at the point where the Nazis round up and kill millions of Jews who did nothing to them, while Israel is trying to hunt down terrorists who are hiding among civilians. Even if Israel were to kill every single person in Gaza, the deaths would still be about 1/6th of what the Nazis did. As for Sir Gerald Kaufman's personal story, did the Israelis walk into someone's house and shoot their grandmother sick in bed? Also, Godwin's law says you lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) ********! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe news last night suggested that the white phosphorous was used only to provide a smoke screen for troop advancement. They pop out a few flares that give off white smoke for ages to give cover to advancing troops. It suggested that injuries caused buy these happened in an attempt to stamp out the flares. So - these 'civilians' that were supposedly burnt up by white phospherous attacks were actually burnt when they were trying to sabotage the Isreali smoke screens by trying to stamp out the flares. What utter nonsense. Listen to yourself! Edited January 17, 2009 by bombus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 F*******! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What utter nonsense. Listen to yourself! Might I suggest a debate class, bombus? You're not winning anyone over with posts like that. This is just a nickels worth of free advise, so do with it what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Might I suggest a debate class, bombus? You're not winning anyone over with posts like that. This is just a nickels worth of free advise, so do with it what you will. I was lost for words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 What utter nonsense. Listen to yourself! Err - it was on the news. There was a video clip of a civilian guy stamping out a smoking flare. QUOTE (from http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23611375-details/Israel%20uses%20phosphorus%20shells%20as%20smokescreen%20for%20troops/article.do?expand=true ):"Under the Geneva Treaty of 1980, white phosphorous is banned as a weapon of war in civilian areas because of the severe injuries it causes. But there is no blanket ban under international law and white phosphorous can be used legitimately as a smokescreen." Just repeating what I saw on the news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 My incredulity is because you appear to be suggesting that all the civilian casualties are due to this, which I would strongly suggest is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I think that the comparison falls apart at the point where the Nazis round up and kill millions of Jews who did nothing to them, while Israel is trying to hunt down terrorists who are hiding among civilians. Even if Israel were to kill every single person in Gaza, the deaths would still be about 1/6th of what the Nazis did. As for Sir Gerald Kaufman's personal story, did the Israelis walk into someone's house and shoot their grandmother sick in bed? Also, Godwin's law says you lose. The interesting part is also that the Nazis were the "weak" side, with many many many more casualties. By far. In fact, you might find this article from the Huffington Post interesting: Stop This Vicious Slaughter! England Must Stop Waging War On The Nazis! Meet The Old Dross - Same As The New Dross... This blog was filed on January 3rd 1944. There may have been a slight delay with the post appearing due to server problems... Dateline: January 3rd 1944 Fury continues to mount worldwide about the senseless loss of civilian life in Germany caused by England's callous bombing of German cities including Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden. As of today many innocent German women and children have died in these utterly brutal bombing missions. And now there are ground offensives starting on mainland Europe. The English have claimed that they are merely retaliating against the V-1 flying bombs being launched indiscriminately by Nazis at their civilian population in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Coventry and other cities. The English point out that their enemy is sworn to its utter destruction and has used the missiles and flying bombs against its civilians without any regard to English loss of life. Moreover it makes the case that their own bombing missions are specifically directed to military targets that the German army has intentionally planted in the heart of civilian populations to try and deter English counter-attacks. (read more here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 See Sir Gerald Kaufman (British Jewish MP) in the House of Commons condemn Israel as behaving like Nazis here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21781.htm Yeah and the Pope called Gaza a "concentration camp". Both men should know better than to use such a crass characterization, but hey, never let it be said that with great power comes great wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 My incredulity is because you appear to be suggesting that all the civilian casualties are due to this, which I would strongly suggest is nonsense. I was talking about the casulties from the white phospherous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 A "cease-fire" went into effect a couple of hours ago. So I guess we're back to the one-sided business of Hamas shooting Israelis and Israel just taking it, and the rest of the world being just fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Breaking news - Israel Declares Unilateral Gaza Cease-Fire. Should that put to rest the idea that Israel has entered Gaza solely to control Gaza? ((ah, Pangloss, you're ahead of me.. )) in any case, I think the "magic word" here is "Unilateral". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 To be fair, though, I don't think that is actually a ceasefire. Israel is stopping its offensive attacks, but I don't doubt that they will defend themselves if attacked. And Israel is holding the Gaza strip. If Hamas were to agree to this ceasefire, it would basically be surrendering, would it not? From the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090117/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians If Hamas holds its fire, the military "will weigh pulling out of Gaza at a time that befits us," Olmert said. If not, Israel "will continue to act to defend our residents." ... "The occupier must halt his fire immediately and withdraw from our land and lift his blockade and open all crossings and we will not accept any one Zionist soldier on our land, regardless of the price that it costs," Barhoum said. The demands seem reasonable, except for the part where Hamas is likely to use the open borders to replenish the missile stocks that Israel worked so hard to destroy. Seeing as how one of Israel's primary targets were the tunnels across the border, it is also obvious that Israel would not accept these conditions, so the demand was likely intended only to make Israel look bad. I guess Israel could consider eventually opening the borders if they agree to stop the rocket attacks and actually do so for a good while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I have two points to make specifically about the borders: 1. Why is Israel the only one to "blame" about the open borders? Gaza shares a border with Egypt, too. 2. Open borders in Gaza means open border *into* Israel. Just like any other country, doesn't Israel deserve the right to keep its own borders closed, and decide who passes into its territory? Won't it be the same as Mexico demanding the international community make sure that it's northern border be open? That demand doesn't affect just Mexico, it means that everyone can get *into the US*... Seeing as the border with Gaza *was* open for a long time before Hamas came to power, and was closed only when suicide bombers tried to pass though it (or, sadly, after such suicide bombers succeeded to pass through it and into Israel), I don't think it's very surprising Israel is being very reluctant in opening its borders to Gaza. Perhaps Gaza should demand this "open border" policy from Egypt.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Aaaaaand here come the rockets, right on cue. http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSLI526807._CH_.2400 I disagree with that article, though -- Israel is definitely not "back at square one". Now the issue is getting attention. Not that it will make much difference, I suppose, but if the Palestinian people want peace and prosperity, they're going to have to stand up and reject the culture of militant response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Moo... you know as soon as the boarder is opened again the suicide bombers will come through and the missiles will start again - it happens every time. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOh - so as I type it happens as Panglos has posted. What do you say to that bombus? Are you going to berate Hamas now for war mongering? THEY WANT A WAR WITH ISREAL!!! THEY WANT THE REST OF THE ARABS TO GET INVOLVED!!! THEY WANT ISREAL DESTRYED!! THERE WILL NEVER BE PEACE HERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombus Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) Aaaaaand here come the rockets, right on cue. http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSLI526807._CH_.2400 I disagree with that article, though -- Israel is definitely not "back at square one". Now the issue is getting attention. Not that it will make much difference, I suppose, but if the Palestinian people want peace and prosperity, they're going to have to stand up and reject the culture of militant response. Yes, but Israel can continue with its militant response, i.e., occupying Palestinian territories, allowing illegal expansion to occur, blockading Gaza, buildling illegal walls across Palestinian land etc. It seems to me that people here are characterizing Israel as a peaceful country that just wants to stop the rockets, and are completely forgetting the entire context in which this conflict exists. Israel have been provocoteurs for the past 50 odd years. I can't expect people from the USA to remove their bias goggles though, as you get force fed anti-arab propaganda by CNN, Fox, etc. It's like you can't see the other side of the coin. Israel is an out of control rogue state that can do exactly what it likes, including bombing the UN. No-one does anything about it, not one sanction put in place, because they have the US and all other western nations by the balls. I only wish they weren't a nuclear armed state. Yet more murderous acts here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-gaza-doctors-grief,0,7475024.story Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI was talking about the casulties from the white phospherous. Yes, so was I. I bet very few of the WP casualties were from similar actions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBreaking news - Israel Declares Unilateral Gaza Cease-Fire. Should that put to rest the idea that Israel has entered Gaza solely to control Gaza? ((ah, Pangloss, you're ahead of me.. )) in any case, I think the "magic word" here is "Unilateral". Why? Israel will continue to occupy Gaza. The rockets are not going to stop now anyway - with over 1000 Palestinians dead and many more injured. It's a meaningless statement. Their still bombing Gaza. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYeah and the Pope called Gaza a "concentration camp". Both men should know better than to use such a crass characterization, but hey, never let it be said that with great power comes great wisdom. And he'd have been right. I suspect they are far wiser people than anyone on this forum. Edited January 18, 2009 by bombus Consecutive post/s merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 The thing with a war that has been going on for SOOO long is - that there is no simple peaceful solution that will please both sides. It's very sad. Some people will take the Israeli side and others the Arabs. It is very difficault to discuss without arguing. If it was that simple then I guess it wouldn't have turned into a nasty war in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Nothing they do will be good enough for you, Bombus. You start walking your way, I'll start walking mine... We'll meet in the middle, beneath that old Georgia pine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Yes, but Israel can continue with its militant response, i.e., occupying Palestinian territories, allowing illegal expansion to occur, blockading Gaza, buildling illegal walls across Palestinian land etc. It seems to me that people here are characterizing Israel as a peaceful country that just wants to stop the rockets, and are completely forgetting the entire context in which this conflict exists. Israel have been provocoteurs for the past 50 odd years. That's fine, it seems to me that your history is a bit misrepresented, as I said before. I don't try to represent Israel as a perfectly peaceful country; this conflict has 2 sides to it. It seems to me, however, that you're doing the extreme opposite of what you're claiming we're doing and claim the Palestinians to be the innocent "little fella" that has every right to kill as many civilians as they want. Your history is innacurate, bombus, as I've said before, the two nations lived on this land for much longer (MUUCH longer) than the past 60 years, and in relative peace. Historically, Israel has the same right to exist than the Palestinian nation. The difference is that when Israel was declared the Arab nations immediately declared war (1948). However, Israel declared many many times (and acted on it, by leaving Gaza in 2005, by signing the Oslo accords, by appealing to the international community, by offering half of Jerusalem to Arafat, etc etc) that it is interested in a 2 state solution. If this discussion is to go anywhere, we need to stop with extreme remarks, and try to see where the facts lie - on both sides. Yes, so was I. I bet very few of the WP casualties were from similar actions. But that's just it, bombus - whenever anyone other than you "bets" or "guesses" you make a (just!) remark that it's lacking proof. But you seem to keep doing it yourself. Be consistent with what you're asking others to do, and supply the proof you expect others to supply as well. Why? Israel will continue to occupy Gaza. The rockets are not going to stop now anyway - with over 1000 Palestinians dead and many more injured. It's a meaningless statement. Their still bombing Gaza. I'm not that sure the rockets are going to stop, but Israel declared it's going to leave Gaza anyways. I don't think anyone thought they could stop *ALL* rockets with any sort of action short of a massive carpet-bombing of gaza (which, as you know, was not done). What *was* achieved is a severe blow to Hamas smuggling infrastructure and their tunnels. This is far from returning to 'square one'; now in a cease fire the chances of them smuggling weapons and explosives in, and the chances of having actual talks is higher. And he'd have been right. I suspect they are far wiser people than anyone on this forum. Yeah, well, we can all make extreme-remarks that drive people into a disgust-emotional state (did you read the article I posted a few posts ago?). That doesn't mean it's valid, or historically true, or getting the discussion anywhere other than the emotional gutter. Politics is hard to be objective in, but there *are* ways to try. Historical honesty is one. Avoiding low-blows is another. Extreme tactics can be done in both sides of the discussion. And yet, what good will this do to this discussion..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now